I had always assumed that if a man had gotten a woman pregnant, then if that pregnancy is carried to term, both partners should be financially responsible for the child regardless whether the man had wanted to have the child or not. The mindset being “they got them pregnant, so you have to face the consequences’”.
I was talking with some people online, and they asserted that if the man did not want to have the child, then they should be able to apply to be resolved of any financial responsibility towards caring for it. I was at first against this proposal, but I feel like I now understand it better. Our current legislation was created at a time where abortion was tantamount to murder, and since it was illegal, an obligation of financial responsibility was the only way to ensure that women weren’t stranded with children they couldn’t afford to raise. But now that we live in a world where abortion is legal (for now), and where abortion procedures are safer than carrying the child to term, there doesn’t seem to be a good argument for men still needing to be financially responsible for unwanted children. Men probably would still need to assist in paying for the procedure, but outside of that, I think they had a point. Please explain to me if there is anything I’m failing to consider here.
I also want to apologize for the binary language I used in writing this. I tried at first to write this in a more inclusive way, but I struggled wrapping my head around it. If anyone can educate me in how to write in a way that doesn’t disclude non-binary comrades, I would appreciate it.
Jesus Christ, this thread. So many bad takes :haram:
You cannot expect women to have abortions. You cannot have them lose legal rights for not getting one. Abortions are not a good thing - they should absolutely be legal and accessible, mind you, but they are not a desirable outcome, but rather a last resort, which can be damaging to the person getting it. I fully support legalized, accessible abortions, because I believe the option should be available and should be administered in a safe and sterile environment and not in a back alley with a coat hanger. But it’s still an unfortunate thing.
Ideally, society ought to take a larger role in raising a child, as it takes a village. In “return to monke” times, once children were old enough to run around and communicate, they’d learn and be cared for by the whole tribe, who were close to and trusted by the parents. Obviously in modern times this is not viable, due to the atomization of society and the lack of strong social bonds and trusted groups. The problem can be alleviated somewhat through social programs and the like, but beyond that I don’t know how we might reshape society in such a way that we have more safe and nurturing environments for children that would take some of the burden off of the parents. Personally, I don’t have children but I babysit for one of my friends, and despite being awkward around children at first, I’ve come to enjoy it - kids are much less draining when you don’t have to deal with them 24/7.
However, the present conditions being what they are, you do have to bear part the responsibility for bringing a child into the world. It’s not ideal, but until we establish FALGSC it’s necessary.
Also just wanna point out that Chapo is very male and these discussions should probably be taking place in an environment where more female voices can be heard.
“Currently, society expects individuals to take on the burden of providing for a child. Therefore it should be considered fine and good for one parent to walk out and leave the child and remaining parent in a really precarious situation”
See, we can interpret your arguments in a bad faith way too
I’m saying that nobody should be in a precarious situation. If one partner wants an abortion then let them have it. If the other doesn’t want the raise the child then let the state help with aid. It’s not mutually exclusive, unless you’re operating on some sort of weird austerity mindset, or some weird Jordan Peterson “men are men and should pay” shit, or some other kind of zero-sum view.
That is not a bad-faith way of interpreting their argument.
I bet you fifty (50) USD that @ofriceandruin has said something semantically identical to that somewhere on the Internet.
Abortions are not a good thing - they should absolutely be legal and accessible, mind you, but they are not a desirable outcome, but rather a last resort, which can be damaging to the person getting it. I fully support legalized, accessible abortions, because I believe the option should be available and should be administered in a safe and sterile environment and not in a back alley with a coat hanger. But it’s still an unfortunate thing.
Also just wanted to say that this rhetoric reminds me of this: https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-48-shifting-media-representations-of-abortion-part-i
Hmmm this is a very good take, I like it. My one concern is on the safety of abortions. Modern science has made abortion procedures safer than carrying a child to term. In that case, shouldn’t a perfectly ran society encourage abortions rather than childbirth if the child is unnecessary?
In that case, shouldn’t a perfectly ran society encourage abortions rather than childbirth if the child is unnecessary?
This is some disgusting shit to say. No. This is eugenics, white supremacy and misogyny, fuck off. A perfectly ran society should encourage bodily autonomy and put no restrictions on, and offer support to, carrying a pregnancy to term or having an abortion.
I really think you’re putting words in my mouth here, I wasn’t even saying that was the right solution, I was just asking a question.
I don’t think any society, let alone a perfect one, should be able to control bodily autonomy. All I was asserting is that a society would encourage family planning education and birth control, and to promote abortions as a safe alternative for unsure mothers.
if the child is unnecessary?
Uhh? Are there some people who are nececessary and others who are unnecessary? Necessary for what, according to whom?
There are many things that people do that have safer alternatives. You’re more likely to die climbing a mountain than you are lounging around watching TV. Should a perfectly run society encourage people to do the latter rather than the former?
